Memeorandum

November 19, 2012

Whodunnit? Benghazi Talking Points Mysteriously Changed

The Administration talking points on Benghazi were edited to downplay the terror references, but by whom? In a nice display of synchronized finger-pointing, everyone involved says it was someone else.

Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) also said
on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus said the initial talking points were
altered and that senior intelligence and security officials did not know
who was behind the changes.

“At the hearing we had on Thursday and Friday, we had every leader of
the intelligence community there, including folks from the State
Department, the FBI, everybody there was asked, do you know who made
these changes? And nobody knew,” Chambliss said.

“The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there
was the White House. I don’t know whether what they said yesterday is
exactly right or not. But, what I do know is that every member of the
intelligence community says that references to al Qaeda were removed by
somebody and they don’t know who. And references to attacks versus
demonstrations were removed by somebody.”

Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D.,
Calif.) disagreed with Rogers and said allegations the White House
changed the talking points were false. “So there was only one thing that
was changed and I’ve checked into this, I believe it to be absolute
fact and that was the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” she
said on the same program.

Although they risk offending their Silicon Valley supporters, Team Obama might want to consider blaming AutoCorrect.

Comments

There are 17 agencies in the "Intelligence Community," including CIA,all reporting to Clapper.

Yesterday I saw Kent Conrad saying that the Rice talking points were approved by "the entire Intelligence Community." That's a bald-faced lie. But I guarantee we will never learn who made the change.

I suspect that Feinstein is talking about a minor correction that was made after the Rice points were altered to remove any reference to Al Qaeda.

Why does any of this matter? It matters only because it shows the administration told a lie in order to avoid interfering with its campaign narrative. But who is going to care? This bastard has already been forgiven for far worse.

Rogers said the talking points were reviewed by a “deputies committee” of senior officials that is “populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed.”

If he can prove that (and I suspect he can), then the scandal is exactly as advertised: a political operative from the Administration changing intelligence for domestic political consumption (read: propaganda) in order to affect an election.

If we had a functioning fourth estate in this country, it'd be up in arms. As it is, expect the story to be framed in reference to how it affects Rice's potential nomination for SecState . . . and likely spin will be: "mean GOP digs dirt on poor black girl."

The left managed to make Karl Rove into a relatively well-known national figure, enough that even low-information voters came to see him as an "evil genius" and "Bush's brain", etc., and his (perceived) loathsomeness then attached back to Bush and the Republicans generally.

Why does the same thing not happen with the odious (and untelegenic, uncharismatic) Axelrod? Why is his name not sysonomus with dirty tricks, deception, and all the evils of modern campaigining?

Here's what McCain et all should say to this garbage about "oh, poor Susan Rice, being attacked because she's a woman.":

"We are criticizing the person that the Presdient chose to send out to deliver mistaken or dishonest information to the American people. She happens to be a black woman, so that's who we're criticizing. If the President had sent a white man onto five separate national news programs to tell the American people things that weren't true about the death of our ambassador and the shocking breakdowns in security, then we'd be criticizing a white man right now."

I'm not even talking impeachment (although God knows Zero's given us enough legitimate causes for it in his term). I'd just like to see "Axelrod" turned into a dirty word the way "Rove" (or, before him, "Atwater") was.

He may be good at what he does, but what he does is loathsome and dishonest and, from where I sit, a hundred times more harmful than anything Rove evr contemplated doing.

TC:
And your guess would be correct. Of course it is Axelplouffe/ValJar and probably Moochelle. And guess what? They probably neglected to tell O=bama{ see Holder wrt Petraeus}
I had this vision last night that about 3 months ago Obama told his team : "Don't tell me any bad news or anything that will affect my re-election. If I don't know about it then I am in the clear and they can't pin anything on me." What other explanation is there than he is the most incompetent sleazeball to ever hold the office.

I am not ruling out impeachment in this Benghazi imbroglio. I believe Broadbent's father. Something fishy is going on wrt selling guns and exchanging held prisoners for interrogation. I don't think we have even scratched the surface on this thing.

According to the spew from assclown FoaF in my FB wall, the reason that the info was changed was because of "national security", and "treasonous vipers exploiting tragedies for their know nothing hate-filled base" are just believing what they're told, with evidence provided by some "Mother Jones" link which I don't plan on following.

it doesn't matter who changed it, what matters did the president see the original talking points or briefing or whatever it was. If he did see it, he evidently approved the change. If he didn't see the info, why not? Why isn't he doing his job? Being the CIC, shouldn't he of all people be on the unvarnished truth mailings?

Yes, it's a look squirrel, he apparently did, otherwise he wouldn't have said what he did on 60 minutes, with the gap toothed weatherman from Muncie, that's another level of idiocy you have to plumb, yet he didn't entirely buy it.

The GOP can simply show a united front in opposing Rice, and hold her hostage to the questions on this issue. They also need to start making noises about the agenda behind the original response about the crisis -- which goes farther than a mere disrupption avoidance to the narrative about "we got Osama".

The thing to remember is that the Administration wanted Benghazi to be about the video. I have my suspicions about why that is -- and it has to do more with Obama wanting to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment to accomodate his speech code loving heart, than it does with electioneering.

What I still find truly odd about this is the fact that Ambassador Rice was chosen as the point person to go on the Sunday morning talk shows. Why? What sort of insight does the ambassador to the UN bring to the table? It seems to me that she was just a useful idiot that was set-up as cover for the rest of the administration.

Maryrose, I say this with full knowledge that Clarice wishes me dead, if congress does not care that the official Whitehouse website is displaying a forgery that purports to be the President's identification, what do you think they will really do with Benghazi?

I have my suspicions about why that is -- and it has to do more with Obama wanting to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment to accomodate his speech code loving heart, than it does with electioneering.

Yep. They were much more interested in how they could use this domestically than what it meant overseas.

Makes the worst theories about Fast and Furious seem more plausible, doesn't it?

TK;
It has been a completely false narrative wrt anything related to Obama from the very beginning. What other president has a continuous issue like his birth certificate as a bone of contention for 5 years?
False meme are promoted and false ideas are posted. Carney looks worn out from all the lies he has to tell everyday. Chicago knows no other way to behave. There is no conscience or moral values present in their souls.I am certain there is no internal investigation. That is a tagline for when they run out of outright lies to tell. I can't believe that in the case of Obama P.T. Barnum was right."there is a sucker born every minute." I also believe if Obama came out and said" Benghazi? oops my bad" many persons would be fine with that.
If we don'e get Obama and impeach him on Benghazi, it will be something else. Clinton thought he was safe after re-election. 18 months later we had Monica-gate. Obama will slip up again. Meanwhile I am moving my 401K money to where Bammy can't steal it.

Chubby:
Your take on this is the correct one. I know if anyone asked Obama if he saw the talking points he would just lie about it. All his flunkies would back him up too. They didn't want Petreaus to say what he did on Friday at the hearing. Now everything you hear will just be spin. Meanwhile we need to explore the real Benghazi story before all the evidence of what really happened there is gone. The administration tried to clean it up but unfortunately once the FBI got in they did discover some left behing papers. How about that guy in Tunisia? What have we learned from him?

DOT:
Once again you are spot on. The only bright spot was how the administration played Rice like a fiddle and she realized too late that they screwed her over. Hil's advice to Rice "welcome to the big leagues rookie"

Rob:
I believe Milbank and Dowd are preparing the muddle for the fact that Rice will not be getting the SOS job in her lifetime.Even Hillary doesn't want it anymore because everything Bammy touches turns to dust.

Milbank (who actually has sources to go with the snark) is LUN. His point is Rice has many enemies, that she developed through her own efforts. I think a few those enemies must have talked to him.

As to what it means? My guess is the same is yours. Ms. Rice delivered the party line on Benghazi because, ultimately, she was both willing and expendable. John Kerry will be the next Sec of State, and Rice will stay where she is. And, in case she complains, Obama can point to these stories, and how difficult her confirmation would be.

In the meantime, he'll continue his disingenuous defense of her, without really ever doing anything that puts it to the test. The GOP being mean to black womenfolk, after all, plays well in the polling.

Wonder what Condi Rice thinks of all this, and wonder if she is willing to say anything about it?

In other assorted 100% news, Gary Kreep became a Superior Court Judge on this platform:

OFFICIAL BALLOT STATEMENT

Arrogant judges who overstep their authority are a threat to society. They let criminals go free based on procedural technicalities. Other judges think nothing of overturning ballot measures approved by millions of voters. Some are elected just to push a political agenda.

I am a constitutional law attorney with 36 years experience in the courtroom. I have handled every type of case that a Superior Court Judge will hear, not just criminal cases. My commitment to the people of San Diego County is to follow the law and the Constitution, and to administer justice with a firm but even hand in every case that comes before my court.

I am a 1972 graduate of UCSD, a 1976 graduate of USD Law School, and I have lived in San Diego County since 1968. As a Judge Pro-Tem, I have heard approximately 1,000 cases and have served as a Settlement Judge in family law cases.

I proudly served on the Ronald Reagan delegations to the 1976 and 1980 Presidential Nomination Conventions.

For over 33 years, I have served as the CEO and General Counsel of the United States Justice Foundation —a conservative non-profit legal foundation based in San Diego

there's also a theory floating around, I heard on Fox, that because John McCain and John Kerry are very good friends, McCain is going after Rice to clear the path for Kerry. I had no idea McCain and Kerry were bff. I would have thought those two would be bitter enemies.

clarice:
I think you are correct. I loved your analogy of Obama to the Gingerbread Man in yesterday's article. It is so true. Also a certainty-that in fact he will one day perish politically and won't see it coming.

the reason that the info was changed was because of "national security",

Yeah, the NYT has been reporting that unquestioningly. Because, you know, in order to protect sources and not tip off the perpetrators (who I'm sure were really fooled), it was necessary to point the finger at a private citizen, endanger his life, instigate a media stampede to his home, etc.

I don't buy it for a minute, but even if they did need to keep some details quiet, they could have just said that, rather than lie.

it has to do more with Obama wanting to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment to accomodate his speech code loving heart, than it does with electioneering.

I don't know, I'm convinced enough by the electioneering: It would have spoiled his "We have AQ on the run" meme. Not to mention his whole theme that we can make terrorists love us by understanding their pain.

Elenor Holmes Norton is on Megyn's Show and she is saying, unlike all her DEM compatriots, that the criticism of Susan Rice is not Racism.

Now that she has officially given us cover, I would love to see us go on offense and counterattack every one of the Dem's and the President who are saying it is Racism, by citing Holmes and demanding a full and official apology from every Dem politician who says it is racist. if not we should start loud and official censure proceedings against those spouting this racist Hate Speech against Republicans.

Go on offense. What have we got to lose?
Call them on Racism now because Elenor is on our side.

The thing to remember is that the Administration wanted Benghazi to be about the video. I have my suspicions about why that is -- and it has to do more with Obama wanting to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment to accommodate his speech code loving heart, than it does with electioneering. by Appalled @1:24 PM

Free State Paul;
The cry of racism is the last argument of someone desperate to change the subject. Holmes needs to check her facts on Benghazi. The ambassador did not have enough protection because dumbbell Hillary didn't answer his cables for help. I can't wait for her to testify. Then we will really learn the meaning of the word "is". Personally I think she's in greater danger than Bill was, hence all the lawyers.

narciso:
If they go underground none of the media can see them jumping around and randomly shooting their guns off. Or as has been reported lying down and faking injuries.
My regret today is the travesty of justice and fair voting for Allen West.In 2014, I volunteer to work as a poll person or a repub observer down there to prevent ballots mysteriously appearing and ballots being counted twice or not at all.

On catch up I just caught up with RichatUF's comment from the previous thread at 05:41.

daddy-

So Doogan and Friends wanted to first raid the state rainy day fund, putting that money into the other pot of money the PDF, then cancel the citizen dividend, so the Dems would have a really big pot of money to send on whatever crazy scheme they could dream up. And Alaskans would be out their PDF but they'd have as much government as $40 billion or so could buy.

Exactly correct Rich. That is what was going on up here. That was the Game plan.

IMHO, that's all the opposition can hope to do at this point - make a good start. Dig up the dirt on Obama and his bizzaro administration and slowly let it rub off on the Democrats. They're the target now, and from now on we need to impede their progress and dirty them up for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Even with his horrid, embarrassing record, Obama was untouchable in 2012. So, I would not focus on impeachment. We're fortunate to have the house and we need to retain it and hopefully gain in the senate. We won't be able to do that if the Republicans become the issue.

DoT, I was about to add that it would be great if we could tie Kerry to the Broadwell--Kellery chickarama, but apparently Kelley has bragged about being with him and picked up several hundred thousands of dollars from one of his big contributors. Let's see his personal emails ....

Hostess Brands Inc. and its striking union agreed to mediation Monday to avoid the immediate liquidation of the baker of Ho Hos, Twinkies and Wonder Bread.

Judge Robert Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y., said attorneys representing Hostess and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union will participate in mediation Tuesday in a bid to avoid the loss of more than 18,000 jobs.

What is the sense in having elections? As the Allen West miscount clearly shows there is no way the votes in that district can be recounted and the same total arrived at. The Democrats appear to be terrified that a total recount would be allowed.

Surely in the USA, we can figure out a way to count ballots correctly every time. It needs to be done now.

pagar, as I recall, election officials in Fla are elected. In Broward county some time ago they had a Ms Oliphant who also was unfit for her job and the state stepped in and had her ousted. Perhaps the state could set up a training course for district election officials and pass a law requiring all candidates for those positions to be certified as having successfully completed it.

1. Hostess-- that Bakers union hasn't been the problem, I don't think. Didn't the Teamsters strike, and demand the Bakers honor the picket line? BTW, the Teamsters pension fund is better funded, so they can afford to have Hostess liquidate.

2. about 330ET Army paint scheme UH-60 Blackhawk copter did 'corkscrew' approach and landing at UN grounds. what is this, Baghdad on the East River?

Bravo to Allen West, for pursuing a full and complete counting and reporting of the votes. That doesn't happen nearly often enough.

It occurs to me that we should start campaigning for the RNC to make funding conditional on a candidate's agreement not to concede any election -- not matter what the margin of defeat might be -- until every vote has been counted and/or accounted for. It is my understanding that many states/districts simply stop the count, once the number of outstanding votes, like absentee or provisional ballots, would not be sufficient to affect the outcome. The way it is now, when candidates have to demand (and fund) this as individuals, they take a hell of a beating.

Instituting such a policy seems like a relatively easy thing to do. It could make a real difference, even if folks just starting think twice about committing the kind of casual fraud that seems to be a commonplace.

It would be even better if the RNC or an entity like Rove's PAC, could be persuaded to create a designated fund for taking post election legal action, over and above financing recounts. We see things like obvious discrepancies between vote tallies and registered voter rolls, yet there seem to be no substantive consequences for actual malefactors, even in the most brazen cases.